My original question was “How do we disincentivize the purchase of pickup trucks/SUVs” but then I thought it would be better to approach the larger problem of car dependency and car ownership. One option is, of course, to create public transit infrastructure and improve it where it already exist. This, however, doesn’t change the fact that some will still choose to drive. What would be the best ways to discourage people from owning personal cars?
You must log in or register to comment.
Make everyone use bikes
RIP people with busted knees I guess
No-one who seriously considers the issue thinks all cars should be done away with.
Cities designed for pedestrians can still be made to accommodate accessibility vehicles, and even more importantly, emergency vehicles.
except there are a lot of people who don’t seriously consider the issue here (online in general).
There are ebikes that don’t require pedaling, even some that are more like tiny cars with a roof and doors, etc.
I view it as sidelining cars to improve public transportation.
- First thing is to eliminate and revise public zoning laws and removing parking minimums. This causes change the slowest but is the most important to start since it will lead to denser population centers, and parking garages can be closer to residence.
- Second move I think is to eliminate extra lanes and trim road widths. This leads to driving being something that takes more focus and is slower. This also frees space for bike lanes and even dedicated bus lanes.
- Slowly phase out free parking across the city. Start with spots directly next to crosswalks so that there is better visibility of pedestrians crossing. Then focus on bus routes to free a dedicated lane when possible. This discourages driving since there’s fewer chances you’ll be able to park close to the place you are going.
- While this is occurring, you should be introducing public transit as it becomes feasible. More buses or trams, guarded bike lanes, etc.
- MAINTAIN YOUR PUBLIC TRANSIT!! As trains and buses fall into disrepair the number of people willing to ride it will drop off. Also keep the bike lanes and sidewalks clear and smooth.
That’s what I’ve got. It takes decades to break down this infrastructure for new stuff. You also need the to be having accessibility in mind whenever you are thinking about installing public amenities or removing infrastructure.
For me the only answer is good, fast, cheap public transit.
Gosh I took the railroad from Long Island, NY into NYC and back. Each way was about 40 min but the total cost was like $19 per person! If I was going with 3/4 friends, it could literally be cheaper and about as fast to drive into the city and pay for parking. It needs to be more subsidized.
Car driving also needs to be less subsidised.
When a drivers license is taken or suspended, especially for speeding in cities, give an easy option to directly… lease(?)1 an e-bike. And then suspend licenses for a lot more of the dangerous behaviors we currently just accept.
A relative got her license suspended for a month for speeding, and then simply did not go anywhere. Having an exciting new mode of transport might have just been what she needed, the supermarket is just 2km away.
1: The state can hammer out the details, obviously we don’t want to gift them it or it becomes a reward for speeding, and selling them it means they could just resell it afterwards when the goal is that they keep and use it. Maybe like a 5 year ban on reselling it, only one per household. Also, probably keep the model generic and discreet so no shame is cast when just trying to buy groceries.
Weird, of the people I know that have had their licence suspended, I don’t think any of them actually stopped driving.
Good public transportation, good bike roads, a train system that works well.
This is why a culture war is forming between bikers and drivers.
It’s not just reallocation of resources, you are actively plotting to disrupt a means of income, safety, or accessibility for the majority.
Biking and public transit are very valid modes of transportation and for some journeys, practical. News flash, I use them too. The same goes for vehicles.
What isn’t necessary for you, may be for someone else. That’s a fact lots of folks here don’t want to acknowledge.
So to answer your question, make something better, faster, cheaper than cars and people will come. But if your recipe for success is making a working system suck bad enough public transport looks good, everybody loses.
I don’t have a massive truck and my 20yo Honda is no status symbol, but I love the act of driving and the skills I’ve developed over my lifetime. It’s freeing, relaxing, and I find a meditative quality and peace when I drive in the mountains. You want to take that away. Now imagine if bikes were taxed and licensed… Not so fun now.
We have to work together in a community. I’m tired of fractions picking fights.
You want to discourage people from buying cars? Then don’t buy one. Be the example you seek. But for heavens sake, don’t be a jerk to others.
I love the act of driving and the skills I’ve developed over my lifetime. It’s freeing, relaxing, and I find a meditative quality and peace when I drive in the mountains.
I like walking in nature but in my country you can’t escape the sound of distant cars. I’m sure it’s not you, you’re definitely the exception and a model citizen, but your hobby is giving me tinnitus and is infringing upon mine. It’s not a culture war, it’s just shit that’s bad for us all vs shit that’s not bad for us all and you really like doing the shit that’s bad for us all so you have this strange cognitive dissonance about it where you can totally admit it’s bad but refuse to stop doing it.
You want to discourage people from buying cars? Then don’t buy one. Be the example you seek.
I’ve never owned a car in my life and I don’t have a license but this hasn’t stopped any of these people from being average car owners…
- https://drkt.eu/library/OnTheRoad/just-park-whereever-you-want.mp4
- https://drkt.eu/library/OnTheRoad/too-important-for-red-lights.mp4
- https://drkt.eu/library/OnTheRoad/PXL_20240607_113331267.jpg
- https://drkt.eu/library/OnTheRoad/PXL_20240604_201902665.jpg
- https://drkt.eu/library/OnTheRoad/PXL_20240426_191945157.jpg
your hobby is giving me tinnitus and is infringing upon mine
Ha! Not a chance. My car is totally stock and doesn’t produce anywhere near the levels of sound pressure to damage hearing. Not even close, dude.
And I have my dashcam videos of bicycles behaving badly too.
Tinnitus is affected by constant exposure, not just dB. Cars make noise and a constant low droning sound gives you tinnitus as well.
I, too, have videos of bicycles behaving poorly. Again, cognitive dissonance; we are not discussing bicycles.
As a former sound engineer, I am well aware of the dangers of volume and exposure limits.
If a liesurly drive way in the mountains gives you hearing damage, your bigger concern is why you’re being dragged behind a car.
As a current employee of the municipal road maintenance and service depot, I’d like to think we have more relevant data than a sound engineer on the harm caused by road noise.
https://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/road-traffic-remains-biggest-source
You are correct and the thousands of scientists who have come to this same conclusion are wrong, totally bro
The differences between car use between countries is a clear indication that it’s not just about necessity or consumer preferences. Societies actively choose how to plan cities and traffic, and doing the same thing as last year is not neutral.
It’s freeing, relaxing, and I find a meditative quality and peace when I drive in the mountains. You want to take that away.
We literally don’t. No-one is out to stop you from driving as a hobby.
We’re specifically out to make that the only reason anyone needs to drive.
What would be the best ways to discourage people from owning personal cars?
We literally don’t. No-one is out to stop you from driving as a hobby.
Um, yes?
No.
discourage ≠ stop
In the same way that “discouraging” someone from over-eating for their own health, doesn’t mean starving them to death.
As a society, we get places with, and design entire cities for, cars. A lot of people who wouldn’t mind either way, own a car simply because “it’s just what everyone does”.
Suburbia and personal vehicles aren’t sustainable, because suburban infrastructure literally cannot pay for itself. It’s built on subsidies, and then maintained by subsidies, except countries like the US are finding that now that most people live in suburbs, there aren’t enough profitable urban areas to take those subsidies from.
Car ownership has to be reduced. So how do we achieve that? How can we change things so that FEWER (not none) people want or need cars?
As a bonus, that means the remaining people who HAVE to drive get to do so on more open roads than ever.
“Discourage from ownership” sort of means stop. It’s hard to drive what I don’t own.
And talking subsidies, my city burns through $150 million annually to build out 400+ miles of bike lanes that 3% of the population use. (Actual stats published by the city)
People like me who had to drive may have open roads again, but understand when you try to pinch casual drivers, you got us too. And a lot of us are hurting really bad. I have friends in flooring, windows, and electrical. 2 have retired, one is accepting they will have to work until they die. It’s harsh on this side, getting worse, and no one is talking about it.
This policy can’t reduce casual vehicle use without harming workers.
It’s hard to drive what I don’t own.
How does your neighbor no longer needing a vehicle, stop you from owning one you do need?
And talking subsidies, my city burns through $150 million annually to build out 400+ miles of bike lanes that 3% of the population use. (Actual stats published by the city)
Car infrastructure is measured in billions. Infrastructure that is used by 100% of the population can still be less cost-effective, if its costs are great enough. Spending 100 billion so that everyone can drive makes no sense if everyone as a whole can only afford 80 billion.
Diverting at least some resources then, so that at least some people can get where they need to go for less, only makes sense.
At least part of the problem is cultural momentum. Even as more cost-effective ways to get around are built out, people will continue to drive because it is what they are used to. The benefits of shifting transport systems also have a severe lag time because a complete transit system is built over decades, not months.
150 million a year is nothing, no shit it’s only useful to 3%. That number only reaches the nineties of cities like Amsterdam when you’ve been doing it for generations. The same was and is true for cars.
but understand when you try to pinch casual drivers, you got us too
Not in my city. Getting around in a car is better than ever. In fact, getting around using every possible mode of transport available is better than ever.
This policy can’t reduce casual vehicle use without harming workers.
Then it’s bad policy, and your local planners don’t know how to change things efficiently. But the cities where it works for everyone LITERALLY EXIST. I live in one.
It is extremely easy for planners to spend money on half-measures that only make things worse, as is happening all over, but that isn’t a reason to stick with something the math proves is broken.
the word here is sprawl. The vehicles actually don’t matter as much as the parking. The more space dedicated to parking the harder it is for people realistically walk to any destination.
We need more than anything to end parking minimums’ which create large, poorly utilized space with high stormwater runoff and think about putting in parking maximums
You’re arguing here for continuing to prop up sprawl, is what it sounds like. You’re open to moving people away from car dependency, but not from suburbs, is my impression. I would love to be wrong about this, so please feel free to assure me you’re not proposing that people just live wherever the hell they want, no matter how unsustainable it might be.
There are times and places for high density cities, and there are times and places for rural living. There is no one-size-fits-all approach here.
Today, I made a makeshift bahn mi burger for dinner. I snagged a French roll and a carrot from the store. I bbq’d a steak burger with Vietnamese marinade and added cucumber, Thai basil, mint, and cilantro that I grew in my garden. Also slapped together a quick salad with tomatoes, peas, and more cucumber also from my garden.
My hobbies are hiking, camping, and backpacking. Right now, I am sitting under two absolutely massive 10’ sunflowers watching my pet turtle bury a clutch of eggs.
You have this impression I’m somesort of eco-terrorist because I like to drive. I know sustainable, I love to grow my own food, I’m aware of my footprint.
But I am all for sprawl and not because I drive. I rent so this will all go away someday because I can’t afford to buy a $1.2 million 2-bedroom starter home or a high density concrete box.
So yeah, my choices are the fringes. Public transport (and bicycling) are going to be sketchy.
My job up until last year was home repair (not going to get too specific because this is the internet) and I did need a truck full of tools. That was my employment; my income.
Changing city policies harmed blue collar workers like me making it difficult to travel between worksites. Every major road to my residence has engineered in congestion as a means of traffic control whether it was appropriate or not. Time is money and being unable to fill one or two appointments daily due to lost time was devastating.
I have a local public transit card I use. It’s great for going to popular destinations like sports, restaurants, and zoos. It is not great to visit friends and family. For that, I use a car (plus I almost always have a passenger) and save money and time.
There is no one-size-fits-all approach here.
Exactly. Yet the entirety of humanity has congregated around the car as if that is that one-size-fits-all solution you’re admitting doesn’t exist.
You know, back before the car, humanity congregated around ports and railroad stations too, right? It’s kinda human nature.
as somebody who does some of this work: roads are expensive and environmentally damaging. The fact road costs are so effectively hidden from drivers is one of the great frustrations about communication on the subject.
Without oodles and oodles of public grants and funds there would be almost no roads. The reality here is that consumers don’t make the decision to have roads and cars, the government does. End of discussion.
Right, and we built tracks out to every building anyone might conceivably want to visit.
Wait, no we didn’t. The popularity of the car in some countries is VERY artificial. Driven by early auto-industry advertising that solidified into culture.
But it didn’t take hold world-wide.
There’s a train station in Tokyo through which the entire population of my country passes DAILY.
A design for a highway interchange that can get 5 million people where they need to go within less than 24 hours, does not exist.
Gotta apologize on my previous comment. I think I misread what you said. My reply doesn’t really make sense anymore now that I re-read the context.
I respect the hell out of that!
The car, when used for all transport, is wildly inefficient. Multimodal transport where whatever mode is most efficient is used, isn’t applied enough.
You like driving. If the goal is to enjoy the pleasure of driving, then no other option serves that purpose. Hence, driving is what YOU should be doing.
But cars are used to achieve so many other goals that do have more efficient options, simply because it is the existing standard.
There are people who VEHEMENTLY HATE commuting by car. They shouldn’t be driving, but doing so might still be the least offensive option. Providing these people a way not to drive, also fits the description of “discouraging” car ownership.
Cultural knee-jerk reactions like yours, as well as the barrier of existing infrastructure, make improvement difficult. OP is specifically asking how to change things in a way that would make people want the change, rather than have it be forced on them.
They didn’t ask how to stop people from owning cars. Discourage means discourage. If you’ll never sell your car no matter what, that means you’re one of the people who can’t be discouraged, but that doesn’t mean people who can, and even should be, don’t exist.
You admit to using transit systems, when applicable, which means you’re already accepting the solution. Would it really be so bad if you could use transit to get more places, and more people could use it for all their needs, even if you aren’t one of them?
deleted by creator
Towns and cities should restructure more to a self sustainable way, so people don’t have to travel as far as often.
My personal example is that I live in a very bicycle friendly city, but at the same time we don’t have a bicycle shop anymore to buy tires and chains and shit…
We need a bike shop here!
With enough cycling investment, i could see denser areas having emergency bike shops along major routes. Offering fast repairs like a tire or chain during rush hours.
Spend trillions on infrastructure.
Basically this. Make it so that people live in places conducive to not owning a car. If people live places where it is miles between their needs and there is no accessible form of alternative transport, you’re stuck with cars.
Better specify, the right kind of infrastructure, not just more highways.
An even more highly infectious and dangerous pandemic.
wouldn’t that discourage public transport?
Wasn’t part of the assignment. We have pretty good data suggesting it has the potential to reduce car usage, and so eventually ownership if it were persist. Keep eating animals and we get to find out!
keep… eating animals.
Nearly every major plague and pandemic humanity has faced in the last thousand years has been the direct consequence of animal agriculture and consumption, and it’s a problem that this is confusing and surprising for you.
By making it a poor choice, which you do by providing a better alternative that is cheaper.
Introduce a cheap alternative, get people used to it, then slowly phasing in taxes to make the undesired behavior too expensive to be worth it for the average person, but still give the option.
I have long thought that cars should largely not exist in cities, but (in America at least) they’re required for rural living. Inside cities, there should be cheap (maybe even free), readily available, and numerous public transportation options. Convert parking lots into usable land, and install large parking garages on the outskirts of the cities, again cheap or free, and make them hubs for the public transportation options.
Now, people can drive to the city on their own. We don’t have to immediately redo the entire country’s infrastructure so that rural citizens still have mobility. If you’re just passing through the city, or want to keep your car on you, there could be a day pass option. It’d be expensive, but doable. Otherwise, you can park and do whatever you need to, and just return to your car when done.
As far as city dwellers who may want to own a car for trips, allow rental of a space in a parking garage for a reasonable rate. You can store your car there indefinitely, have free access to it, but would still need a day pass to operate inside the city.
Change is slow. We have to accept some half measures in service of getting things more in line with where we want them. Eventually we may be able to phase out cars completely, but I’d personally be fine with a drastic reduction in cars inside cities. Incentivizing alternatives works better than punishing the unwanted behavior, and works even better when the two are used in tandem.
I don’t think there is a “best way” - but increasing costs is one way. Singapore is an example of this - you have pay up 106K SGD for the COE (certificate of entitlement) to even be allowed to own a car.
This punishes the poor in rural areas. Unless you are referring to only cities that will also be improving mass transit at the same time, increasing costs has only downsides.
Reframing reducing subsidies as increasing costs is what makes people hate the idea. Gradually reducing incentives to drive would give people plenty of time to transition to other lifestyles.
I was offering an example. In Singapore it works because it’s a tiny country with stable mass transit. Definitely not a model that works in countries with more land.
don’t discourage people from owning personal cars. most of the time this mentality is just a tax on the poor.
Flip the idea. Encourage people to not use cars instead.
- not just bike lanes, but bike storage & lockers
- not just public transport, but better connections between transport modes (buses with bike carriers, train stations with better car parking and bike lockers and bus connections)
- more small car parking bays with all large truck bays further away from the stores
- more motorcycle parking bays
- cheaper motorcycle registration, etc.
it’s all about spending money and effort in the areas you want it. Not about being restrictive.
it’s a slower method of conversion, but more effective.
Anti-tobacco campaigns proved to be very useful. Anti-car campaigns could be equally useful. Won’t happen in the EU sadly because Germany relies too much on automotive industry.
well, sure, because that’s just because vaping didn’t exist then. Once vaping became a thing, soooo many people switched over from smoking to vaping.
I wasn’t being sarcastic, anti-tobacco campaigns and regulations were very effective
You have to do both I’m afraid
no, you really, absolutely don’t.
more importantly, you missed the part where being anti-car is just a tax on poor people. It’s also ableist. We still need cars, and punishing people who need them isn’t helpful.
“poor people, like people on disability payments, shouldn’t be able to afford to drive, but rich people can do whatever they want” is a horrible dystopia.
I agree with you, it’s not fair, but afaik the research and data shows that in order to get people to use their cars less there has to be more downsides to using it as well as easier alternative transportation.
Otherwise people will just keep driving
You can own your car and drive it from time to time, ideally not in the city. Those aren’t what we want to discourage. Discourage driving daily, driving in the city. Make those things simply easier, faster, and cheaper to do than using a car, and, while it won’t KILL cars completely, it’ll reduce them enough to make a noticeable difference.
After that’s successful, and the working class hasn’t completely shit themselves, we can start with making cars less desirable than they are right now. Once only the enthusiasts and most stubborn own a car, we can add some kinds of taxes, so that at the end, we’re left with only the enthusiasts, which I think is a perfectly reasonable goal.
Yes, but you must also do things like add tolls, rush surcharges, etc to actually get the car usage down.
Simply making the alternative better alone won’t make the majority drop the comfort of their own car because it will never be as good as driving yourself.
Pretty sure my second paragraph, starting with the word “after” (that word does a LOT of lifting) addresses that aspect.
It usually happens at the same time, you increase cost. Then you use that cost directly to build and maintain the public infrastructure required.
no, you don’t. that’s all a poor tax, again.
and remember: most of the people who need cars (for mobility reasons) are among the poorest.
So taxing people through tolls and such is just punishing the disabled. ie ableist.
You do if you actually want the traffic to go down and you want to afford the public transportation infrastructure that will be required.
People are in engrained car habits. That’s why alternatives to driving are important, but people are unlikely to switch unless we ALSO make driving less appealing
address how this stance of yours isn’t just a tax on poor people and how it isn’t ableist.
The solution seems to be, build those public transit options first. Let people get used to them, know they exist, etc. even if they’re not massively used, their presence makes implementing some kind of penalty for driving WAY more likely to work - there’s already an alternative in place, we don’t have to worry about what we’re gonna do now, were just gonna take the bus.
I totally understand why you say this. But at the same time:
-
Be a politician
-
Do the right thing and invest billions in an amazing public transport system knowing it won’t be used properly until much later
-
Lose your job for wasting billions on a system nobody uses. Ensure that every other politician in the world cannot henceforth invest in public transport because “Look what happened when that other guy tried it”.
-
There is no Step 4
This is why I propose moving in sloooooow steps. One or two small changes at a time, and eventually we’ve “snuck” some stuff by and moved in the right direction.
The way I look at it, it’s as likely to happen if we do it right as if we do it wrong. Either we’re going to get rid of cars, or we’re not. I’d rather make steps towards doing it right.
-
Lately I’ve been pointing out that most drives people take regularly are only a mile or two long. It’s a hit and miss argument though. Probably more useful for getting people on board with smaller, lighter, cars than getting them out of cars entirely.
I can drive a mile or two in a couple minutes, in any weather, at any time of day. I can get a full supply of groceries or heavy bulky items at any moment. Far less common, but I also have extra clothes, a stocked medical bag, and other stuff wherever I go. I can do this all on my time frame in an instant’s notice. I can get across town to help when they need to get to urgent care quick, or think someone is breaking in. I can get to the hospital if I need it, I can leave town in a hurry, I can visit my parents 4hrs away at any moment.
I guess if public transit could do that, I would take it. The autonomy of having a car means they are not going anywhere. The absolute best you will possibly do it reduce car use. I rarely grocery shop anymore because our local store has a bizarrely affordable home delivery option. If I can pay $10+cost for groceries, I am not driving 15min to the store on a busy weekend. I would carpool to work, but what if I had to leave early, or had to go to a friend/family emergency…20min for the local cab to even get to me is not acceptable in the second scenario.
Autonomy and convenience are what you are looking to remove/replace. I am not saying there isn’t a path. It is worth looking into it, for sure. I just don’t see it, yet.
Autonomy is enjoyable. I understand keeping a car for that purpose in today’s cities. However, if there were multiple methods of crossing the city in a similar timeframe, keeping a car is a high expense. It is possible to have light rail and bus services in a city where no one waits at any stop more than a few minutes because of the high frequency. Imagine if you had access to a $5 trip across your city in the same time it takes currently to drive. Sure, I’m being idealistic here, but in that scenario, why drive when you can be driven?
I assume you took a look at the page I linked, but if not, the figures that 52% of trips are less than three miles are not of all trips ever taken. They are for daily, regularly occurring, expected trips. This removes from consideration that odd trip out of town, those summer trips to the lumber yard, and certainly the emergency hospital visits.
For all these out of the norm trips, keep your car. With good public transit, you don’t even need to check a schedule. Just hop on something that’s going towards your destination. Use it for your commute, for your trips to see friends, for going out with your spouse. Use the car when something comes up unexpectedly.
I’m not trying to rag on you specifically, but I’ll go over your examples of non regular trips you either make or are prepared for:
Going to get groceries on a whim;
Wouldn’t it be nice to live a few minutes walk from a grocery? Everyone should, given we must eat. Imagine if supermarket departments were instead their own shops, distributed through your neighbourhood.
Bulky purchases;
Not sure what you had in mind, but furniture, major appliances, lumber, yard mulch, garden stones, etc, can all be delivered. Yes, often at a fee, but if you’re buying something like this once or twice a year, it’s well cheaper than a car.
Driving across town to bring someone else to an emergency room;
If you’re talking a scheduled doctors visit, then these aren’t on a moments notice events. As far as actual, proper emergencies go, ignoring the existence of ambulance service, even if you no longer had a car, there’s probably cars around you. I’ve waived a stranger down on the road for a trip to the hospital. I’ve knocked on the door of people I don’t know that had a car in the driveway. By and large, people will help you in such a scenario. I’m also sure that coworkers would offer up their car if a family member wound up in the hospital when you’d ridden a bike to work.
A home burglary
Here I’m at a disadvantage, given I don’t live somewhere the odds of this are even one in a million. I suppose I’ll just say that car ownership for this situation seems more costly than a decent security system and maybe life insurance.
I’ll leave off with the suggestion that if you can broaden your horizons, there are a large number of places in existence today that have multiple methods of local - and even high speed regional - transit where the autonomy and convenience people gain in their lives by not being chained to a personal vehicle is undeniable. Cost savings for the car free citizens; cost savings for the municipality or country; better physical health on average; less pollution; less noise.
Best part about getting people out of cars? Less traffic people who keep their cars.
More grocery stores is not a great option for a number of reasons. A more effective distribution hub would be ideal (it’s biggest flaw being the single point of failure).
The bulky purchases counterpoint is fair. I would prefer just driving to get a bunch of soil or supplies for a project. Having to rely on an outside person to get the right stuff, deliver it in a reasonable time, and not having the “oh right I need this too” of walking the isles when kitting up for a project are bigger losses imo than I think people realize. The number of times I went for one thing, then spent a little time price checking other things in the isle or discovering something new is noteworthy. I have groceries delivered now…it is not a great system (yet!) but worth expansion.
The emergency room and burglary ones are definitely outliers and purposefully used on my part, but having solutions for an emergency need is not to be discounted because “it rarely happens”. That one I don’t think I can budge on. (The life insurance comment was a bit ignorant, but you seem to be commenting in good faith. I’d rather have someone not die over getting a life insurance payout)
I agree that walking is great and cars are detrimental on the whole. I can’t think of a good fix for the system and don’t think the fantasy ideas often given are good. Honestly I only really debate them to be devil’s advocate and help strengthen the debate from your side, because you need outside viewpoints to do that.
I appreciate the reply.
Oh the life insurance thing I had meant health insurance, thinking if you get injured during the burglary, your deductible would still be cheaper than purchasing an entire car. Complete flub on my part.
I’ve certainly changed an entire project based on some thing I didn’t know existed in the hardware store before. Walking around and looking at various things can be useful. In this regard I am an outlier in that I have a cargo trailer for my bike that I do use for bringing home small lumber and odds and ends. Definitely not ideal when I’ve realized I forgot something, but that’s fortunately a rarity.
You mentioned soil. I’m going to guess you’re talking about those bags they have in the garden centre. I can’t think of anything I’ve done where I only needed a few of those personally. The times I needed topsoil or mulch or stone, I’ve just gotten either a yard delivered in one of those square bags, or a larger amount from a tilt truck.
What we disagree on is the grocery store point. While I don’t now, not too long ago I lived in an area where a couple bakeries, a deli, a butcher with weird hours, and a small produce / vegetable market were all within walking distance. This allowed me to pop by on my way home to grab something for the evening. I did this most days, and at most it added ten minutes to my journey. Not hyperbole here, I would take a street or two detour and be in and out in a few minutes with the few things I needed.
Given these places didn’t have parking lots akin to a modern Walmart or Target, it was always easy to get in and out without navigating through a sea of parked sedans making the entrance to the store hundreds of feet from the sidewalk. We didn’t need to do the weekly or biweekly hour or longer trips to the shops. I did that when I was a child and I greatly prefer frequent handfuls of purchases to loading up a trolley.
Kind of like performing oil changes every few months or whenever instead of changing the motor every other year. Maybe not a great analogy but you get my point I’m sure.
Having these huge superstores set up shop and drive the smaller competition out of business isn’t a model I like. I see it as damaging to the local economy, the people that end up having to shop there, and the people that end up working there. Walmart is a prime example of this sort of practice. Even if it’s cheaper in the beginning, it never stays like that.
Despite the disagreements, it is nice to have a chat with someone that’s got a different perspective without the conversation turning ugly. Cheers for that.
I think we both fundinentally agree that over-dependence on cars is a problem and are likely in alignment in a number of ideologies. I come from a rural conservative background(I was cured of the conservative bit thanks to some very patient and empathetic liberal folks) and maintain a readiness mentality (not quite prepper loony, but on the same tacks). As of right now, I am very near the outskirts of a small town. I am within easy walking distance of a Walmart (10min maybe), but being able to go there even if it isn’t a good-weather daytime-hours trip while I am in good health, means I will never be anti-car.
Where we overlap, I think, is that making every other option far more accessible, safe, affordable, and convenient should absolutely be a goal. Funny you mention the parking lots. Big box stores did that back in the fifties and sixties because shoppers were more easily manipulated by “oh, this place is always busy, it must be good!”. Something I see in the very old town I live near, and have heard mentioned in conversation with city planners and civil engineers is the idea of stores having their shop-front and entrance right on the sidewalks with parking lots in the back with access by a utility road that connects before the main commercial district. Eliminating the “stroad” effect on the main streets of the shopping district, and facilitating pedestrian traffic without having to burden the town with implementing extra pedestrian-friendly pathways. We also have an ordinance that Jaywalking is not a thing and pedestrians have the right of way no matter the situation or crossing point. This leads Main Street to be a great place to walk down and pop into shops or cafes…but…I am still gonna drive down there before I park at one end and walk it. Our main highway connection road (read about streets and roads and stroads, it is really interesting), that also connects the residential zone to the commercial district, just got a facelift and an extra-wide walking path…but until those trees along side grow real big, that is a desert slog to walk down on any sunny day.
Younger more pedestrian-friendly city planners and the like have really great ideas moving forwards, but it is a slow change in a world literally paved with awful, decades old, corporate-run planning.
After rambling and having a readthrough again…I think cars will always dominate rural situations, could be almost phased out of urban situations, and will be a battle ground where the two meet. I keep reading about making cars cost more. If people had to retest every 5 years and pay $500 each time to maintain a licence, it would most assuredly cut back on cars, ESPECIALLY if those other cheap, efficient, clean, safe alternatives existed…but that still makes my “torment the poor”-o-meter twitch and I dont like it. I don’t have any real answers. I think a lot of the answers from the passionate people fighting this fight are not as realistic, or taking every lifestyle into account, as they think…but I don’t want them to fail or give up for lack of insight. Hopefully discourse can bring more disparate information together and bring about real workable solutions. I look forward to a day where I only drive my Jeep because it is a hobby and a toy, and sell my car because I never drive it any more.
To be easier on your torment the poor-o-metre, one possibility could be to charge a yearly fee for a safety inspection on a personal car, with the fee being scaled by its weight. This way, cars would be safer generally, and people driving a Smart Fortwo would only be out the time it took to get the inspection.
These sorts of inspections are already in place in several countries like the United Kingdom, Japan, and Germany. Some countries also require higher annual registration costs for heavier vehicles, with other places adding inflated street side parking fees. Think of this as sort of an amalgamation of all these things.
The higher the delta between fees for driving a compact car and a large pick up truck is, the more reason people might see in not choosing the F-150. I’m not saying everyone should be cruising around in a Chang Li, but even downsizing the truck lovers to a Chevrolet S-10 would be great. Though of course, the manufacturers would have to make smaller trucks again, which means less profit, and la de da you know how the shareholders feel about that.
Side note, I see people in the summer driving their Jeeps with the doors off. Not my cup of tea but damn if it doesn’t look cool as hell.
I learned a wild thing about trucks, because I despise pickups (other options do what they do, but better in every metric). Apparently trucks are huge so they can be in a different classification of vehicle and avoid certain fees and taxes, and those same fees and taxes make smaller foreign trucks not profitable to sell in the States (the point of the fees and taxes… lobbyists, ffs).
I am a big fan of making huge vehicles more annoying to own, and small, clean vehicles much easier and cheaper to own and operate, with exceptions like minivans for families with 3+ kids. I am so very in support of getting the single-passenger giant SUVs and non-work trucks off the road, even if it means giving up my Jeep.
There are good ideas out there that get us moving in a better direction and I think those are worth pushing.
